Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important caveat that results are indicative and that a signed lifting plan prevails, plus the exact acceptance thresholds (4-point slinging, angle >= 60 deg). The trailing "Lecture seule" merely repeats the annotation and adds nothing, but no contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition and the rule codes, then the input shape, then the disclaimer — a sensible order. It is a dense run-on block with parenthetical nesting, but every clause carries information (rules, field list, caveat).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The rule identifiers (LEV-POIDS etc.) implicitly tell the agent what verdicts come back, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. For a single-parameter, non-destructive checker the definition covers what is needed to invoke it, though it never states the response shape (pass/fail per levage) explicitly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single nested parameter's field list (poids_kg, capacite_grue_kg, elingage_points, angle_elingage_deg, rayon_m, portee_grue_m) is restated identically in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema. The field names are self-documenting with units, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate rather than lower.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (VERIFIER) on a specific resource (operations de levage) and enumerates the four checks with rule IDs (LEV-POIDS, LEV-ELINGAGE, LEV-ANGLE, LEV-RAYON), so an agent knows exactly what will be evaluated. It is clearly distinguishable from the nearby crane/machinery sibling cao_bim_grue despite not naming it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Appelez quand vous devez VERIFIER LES OPERATIONS DE LEVAGE (chantier / EXE)" gives an explicit activation condition and the project phase context. It does not name a when-not case or point to an alternative tool (e.g. cao_bim_grue), which keeps it below 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.